Drat Madras Court May 2005 Judgments
Canara Bank Vs. Basant Kumar Poddar and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC171
1. Both these Appeals have been filed by the Canara Bank as against the Common Order dated 11.1.2005 passed by the DRT-II, Chennai, in MA-58/2004 & MA-60/2004.2. Heard the learned Advocates for the applicant Bank and the respondents.3. The respondents in these appeals were set ex parte in TA-31/2001, and on their applications to set aside the ex parse Order, there was some delay in filing the petition and the said delay was excused on payment of costs. Consequently, the applications filed by the respondents to set aside the ex parte order was allowed on condition that they have to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by each petitioner directly to the applicant Bank. Aggrieved by the said order only, the Bank has preferred these appeals. The learned Advocate for the appellant Bank would contend that the reasons shown are not sufficient to set aside the ex parte Order and without considering the same, the DRT has allowed the applications. It is further contended that originally the appellant Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Poonachi Estate and anr. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC137
1. The appellants are the defendants in O. S. No. 295 of 1995 on the file of Sub-Court, Udumalpet, which suit was filed by the respondent-bank for recovery of the amount due to the bank and the appellants remained ex parte. As against the ex parte decree, the appellants herein have filed I. A. No. 817 of 1996 to set aside the ex parte decree before the Sub-Court, Udumalpet. During the pendency of the said application, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, came to be passed. Proceedings were taken before the DRT, Chennai, for the issuance of recovery certificate on the basis of the ex parte decree. Before the DRT, Chennai, the appellants represented the matter and also apprised about the pendency of the application I. A. No. 817 of 1996, and requested to set aside the ex parte decree, but, the DRT took a view that the decree passed by the civil court, cannot be set aside by the DRT and it could be done only by the civil court. By holding so, the DRT, ...
Tag this Judgment!Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. Muniammal (Deceased) and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC97
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2000, passed by the DRT, Chennai, the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., has preferred this appeal.The appellant Bank filed the application against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 56,45,146.06p. with future interest @ 24.75% p.a. with quarterly rests and for costs. The application against defendants 1 to 3 was decreed as prayed for and dismissed as against the defendants 4 and 5. As against the same, Bank has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant's case is that the 1st defendant Company represented by its Managing Director the 2nd defendant availed loan on various dates from 6.7.1988, that in respect of the cash credit open loan facility, the 1st defendant executed Demand Promissory Note on 22.7.1988 and also executed a letter of hypothecation of bills. That in respect of ad hoc supply bills purchase facility, the 1st defendant executed a promissory note for which the 3rd defendant, who is the wife of the 2nd defendant, in her capacity as a guaran...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›